Summary
Facebook challenged summons issued by the Delhi Assembly's Peace and Harmony Committee concerning the 2020 riots. The Court upheld the Committee's authority to summon non-members and obtain assistance for legitimate deliberations, while excluding policing and public-order inquiries reserved to the Union. Facebook's representative could decline questions directly within those excluded fields without attracting privilege proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed subject to these safeguards; the larger conflict between legislative privilege and fundamental rights was left open.
Issues
- Whether the Assembly committee could compel a non-member's attendance for its inquiry.
- Whether the inquiry exceeded Delhi's legislative competence or infringed speech, silence and privacy rights.
Provisions considered
- Article 239AA(3)(a); Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 1 and 2, Constitution of IndiaDelhi's excluded competence over public order and police limited the inquiry; these limitations could not be circumvented through concurrent-list entries or broadly framed peace-and-harmony objectives. (¶¶ 193, 194, 203, 204, 210, 227, 228)
- Section 18, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991The Assembly's privileges, read within the constitutional scheme, supported summoning members and non-members; an actual privilege dispute had not yet arisen. (¶¶ 177, 183, 187, 189, 228)
- Article 212, Constitution of IndiaThe restrained scope of judicial review of legislative proceedings did not prevent imposing safeguards against an inquiry entering constitutionally excluded fields. (¶¶ 209, 224, 226, 227)
Held
- Legislatures perform deliberative and other governance functions beyond passing laws. Their committees may obtain information and summon non-members; artificial distinctions between essential and non-essential functions cannot defeat legitimate committee work. (¶¶ 166, 167, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 183, 201, 228)
- The February 2021 summons withdrew earlier notices and permitted Facebook India to choose an authorised representative. It had to be answered; speculation about future privilege proceedings did not justify preventing participation. (¶¶ 176, 177, 179, 183, 189, 217, 218, 228)
- The Committee could examine the wider civic and communal consequences of the riots, but could not investigate policing matters, act as a prosecutor or direct criminal proceedings. Paragraph 4(vii) of its terms of reference was outside its remit and did not survive. (¶¶ 204, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216, 223, 227, 228)
- Given the Chairman's statements suggesting Facebook's prosecution, a representative could refuse questions directly concerning excluded public-order or police matters without that refusal attracting privilege proceedings. This limited protection did not permit frustrating legitimate questions. (¶¶ 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 227, 228)
- The claimed conflict between privilege and speech, silence or privacy was premature. The larger constitutional issue remained open in the pending reference in N. Ravi; no advance ruling on a hypothetical breach of privilege was made. (¶¶ 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 228)
- Consequences and validity of the 2021 GNCTD amendment and the new intermediary rules were not examined. (¶ 148)
Result
Writ petition dismissed subject to the stated limits on the Committee's remit and protection against questions directly concerning excluded public-order and police fields.